|
10 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM (#1932820) Subject: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: 282RA Big shocker! Bush is committing 20,000 troops to Iraq--mostly to Baghdad with 4000 troops to Anbar province. They will be embedded in the Iraqi army. And it's going to work this time! Why? Cuz this time we're not going to just clear neighborhoods of terrorists and then leave so that they can come back. This time we're going to STAY there and make sure they don't come back. I know...it's hard to believe it's only now dawning on them that sweeping a neighborhood and then leaving is utterly pointless. How incredibly dull can one be? PLUS, we're going to go into neighborhoods where the terrorists hang out instead of ignoring them like we did last time (?????????????). Any wonder we're losing?? MOREOVER, Maliki has stated that sectarian death squads are UNACCEPTABLE. Well, gee, weren't they unacceptable the last time we boosted troops? If so, why didn't do something about it then when it might have made a difference instead only just now when it's too little too late? An American defeat, says Dubya, would offer terrorists a chance to topple legitimate govts (unlike us) and kill large numbers of people (unlike us). Gee, Dubby, isn't all that your fault? Bushie-boy says victory in Iraq will result in a democratic govt that listens to the will of its people. Hmm. Hey, Georgie! We'd like to have that here in America too. You know damned well you don't want that, Dubby, because the people there hate us and want us GONE!!! The Iraqi govt MUST take responsibility for Bush's mistakes because god knows we're not going to do it. We destroyed their country and infrastructure and the ingrates have the nerve to expect us to rebuild it? Time to do your part, you lazy no good towelheads! What is with you people?? Do we have to do everything??? Oh--and Bushie takes full responsibility for all the mistakes. Hey, Dubby! We've been blaming you for years, asshole! Thanks for FINALLY admitting that you're responsible for the war you started for no good reason. Took only 4 years and 3000+ American lives for you to finally come around to that conclusion. Those Iraqis still alive will be overjoyed, I'm sure. Will the plan work? What do you think? Of course it won't work. 20,000 troops is nothing even if they were freshly trained newbies. But they're exhausted, over-extended grunts who have no idea what the mission is or how to achieve it even if they knew what it was. Of course it will fail. 20,000 is simply not enough. Not even close. This is it for you, boy! This is it! Either this works or you're going down and you're going to hit bottom HARD, me boy! You're out of chances and you're out of troops. You have pretty exhausted the supply by taking those last 20,000. This HAS to WORK!!!! All or nothing. There's no more chances to get it right after this. This is IT! And you'll fail, Mr. Bush. Just like you've always failed. Why? Because you're an incompetent, spoiled, little rich brat who got everything he ever wanted handed to him on a silver platter. You don't know what you're doing and, even worse, you don't care. You're the decider and that's all that matters to you. Mr. Glad-handler. Mr. BMOC. Just as long as you're the dictator, right, dubby? You thought that's how life works: Georgie-boy speaks and everybody jumps. Now, you're finally learning you were living in a dream world all your own. You look like you're awakening INTO a nightmare and your dream world of rich, white privilege is fading fast and you'll never recapture it. You've lost. The U.S. has lost. When the pubs that kissed your stupid ass all these years start crossing the line on you 6 months from now when your little way forward to victory only succeeds in getting more Americans killed and worsens the violence between Shiite and Sunni, they'll desert you. They'll desert you and swear up and down that they never supported you and never agreed with you and that you just did what you wanted without checking with them so it's not their fault but yours alone--that's what they'll be saying. They're already saying now that they wouldn't have voted for the war if you hadn't lied to them--er, I mean, if they knew what they know now. You're done, asshole. You're toast! And I wish I could feel ecstatically happy about that but it scares the shit out of me. What's going to happen to us, Mr. Bush? After we run from Iraq and from Afghanistan, what is to become of us? But I doubt you've ever given that a thought, have you? Fucking stupid shithead! |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:49 PM (#1932822) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Amos Why are you pussyfooting on so, 282? Tell it like you really feel it, man! A |
|
10 Jan 07 - 09:59 PM (#1932827) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Scoville at Dad's 20,000--just enough to piss the Iraqis off a little more but not enough to actually help the troops that are already there. Way to half-ass it. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 10:09 PM (#1932834) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Hey 282RA, I know that you would absolutely love to see the armed forces of the USA whupped like you were in Vietnam. But unlike you these guys are professionals, they actuially take a pride in what they do. They were not force drafted there, they volunteered. You know what they they say - A volunteer is worth ten pressed men. Unlike you guys in Vietnam, the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in. The only people that can lose it for them is you and the likes of you. Don't worry old son, just because you and your country couldn't cut the mustard back in the 1960's and early 1970's doesn't mean that the same fate must befall your "professional" armed forces in the twenty-first century. After all 282AR undermine them and what do you have left to defend you - Let's face face it neither you, nor anyone else on this forum are going to defend anything - True? |
|
10 Jan 07 - 10:35 PM (#1932848) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: 282RA >>20,000--just enough to piss the Iraqis off a little more but not enough to actually help the troops that are already there. Way to half-ass it.<< That's all we have. We've used up our last contingent of combat-ready troops. This is it. This time is HAS to work. This is Bush's last chance to finally do something right. >>Hey 282RA, I know that you would absolutely love to see the armed forces of the USA whupped like you were in Vietnam. But unlike you these guys are professionals, they actuially take a pride in what they do. They were not force drafted there, they volunteered. You know what they they say - A volunteer is worth ten pressed men.<< Don't praise em too much. I was also a volunteer who went to the Middle East. And no I don't take pride in getting my ass shot up trying to bail out an egomaniac's insane scheme for free oil. >>Unlike you guys in Vietnam, the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in. The only people that can lose it for them is you and the likes of you.<< If they had a chance of winning, they'd have won by now. No, there's no chance of winning. And pub shills like you can't blame the democrats or the liberals or the leftists or the media. You had a republican president, a republican congress and a republican Pentagon. From March 2003 to November 2006, they had a chance to win this thing and even declared MISSION ASCCOMPLISHED (remember that?). And all they've done is botch it. And they cannot blame anyone but themselves. There was nobody standing in their way, nobody to stop them, nobody to conduct any oversight. And even so, they couldn't win. And if something doesn't change drastically in the next 6 months, this new Congress (both dems and pubs) will yank the plug. And it's going to be too bad for your buddy. >>Don't worry old son,<< Oh, but I am worried. I'm very worried. This is our last gasp. The American occupation of Iraq has now officially entered its last throes. You're damn right I'm worried. >>just because you and your country couldn't cut the mustard back in the 1960's and early 1970's doesn't mean that the same fate must befall your "professional" armed forces in the twenty-first century.<< And you think we'd learn just how incompetent we really are to fight wars AND we were in much better shape then and still lost. We think we're SO bad and we just look stupid. So what do you think is going to happen now? I know asking you to think is a big demand but try it just this once and you'll see what I'm saying. >>After all 282AR undermine them and what do you have left to defend you - Let's face face it neither you, nor anyone else on this forum are going to defend anything - True?<< The only left to defend is the Constitution and it must be defended from the likes of George W. Bush. That is pretty much all we have left. He's pissed away everything else. He trashed our economy and squandered our surpllus. We're in hock to Red China!!!!! RED CHINA!!! I'm scared. I'm not gloating at Bush's failure--shit I saw that coming the day afer we invaded--I'm just plain scared. It scares me the same way global warming does. It's too late to turn back the clock and we can do nothing at all about what is coming. And there's nowhere to run. |
|
10 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM (#1932891) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Countries that "pre-empitively" and illegally invade other, smaller countries for completely spurious reasons always end up finding out there's nowhere left to run....eventually. Sometimes it takes quite a long time, though. And their true loyalists here and there never give up, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how unpopular their cause. I have a friend whose uncle was a retired SS colonel from WWII, living in Canada. When he'd get drunk, he'd rampage around yelling "Ve vill rise again!" and showing off his Nazi tattoos to the dumfounded and often outraged people in the bar. (What a great way of making new friends, eh?...ha! ha!) Like I said, some loyalists of this or that bloody great conquering empire never give up...no matter how bankrupt their case has become to most of the other people in the world. We'll hear a few like that, long after this debacle is over, still saying that it was weaklings like us war critics who "couldn't cut the mustard", and that caused the defeat in Iraq. Yup, uh-huh. Righty-ho! Have another beer, Herr Koronel... |
|
10 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM (#1932896) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies "Sectarian death squads are unacceptable" says Maliki. I'm from Missouri. Do you by some chance know what that means, Teribus. If not, you should find out. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:01 AM (#1932902) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk What in the world are you saying to Teribus, Ron????? What do you mean about being "from Missouri"? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:06 AM (#1932908) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing Missouri is the "Show Me" state, i.e. prove it. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:08 AM (#1932910) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Al I fell asleep watching this speech. He was so heavily scripted. Not one phrase from the heart. What a phony this guy is. Al |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM (#1932913) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Aw, Cat, you gave it away. I wanted to know how au courant Teribus was with US political slang. Especially since he claims to know better what to do in Iraq than probably most Americans. I envisioned some brilliant remarks from Teribus about how soldiers from Missouri are upholding the honor of the US, contrary to Mudcatters--or something equally perceptive. Now we'll just have to hear his usual drivel. Oh well. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:06 AM (#1932937) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Barry Finn So it was "WE" who lost the great & rightous war in Viet Nam & is it "WE" who'll again lose the war in Iraq T? Are you saying that this is a justified war like Viet Nam? Sounds like it. Didn't we get apologies the last time "WE" had to end the war & bring our soldiers home? Don't you think that this will repeat it's self again? You cannot win a war when it becomes unpopular at home & it's against a nation invaded whose citizens are hell bent to drive out the hated occupier. Didn't we learn that the last time around? About 40 years ago I fought to bring my brother home from one war, I don't want to fight again to bring my son back. He's 17, over my dead body will I give him up for Bush. You can lose yours but "I'd rather live in Hackensack" or somewhere in the South Pacific. Barry |
|
11 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM (#1932957) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Englishman Nice variant on "Yanks go home". Yanks go to Iraq. Our boys come home. You can carry the can for your invasion. Oh, by the way, when you find out how to make it work, can we borrow you to pacify Ireland? We "conquered" it (now that was, nakedly, an attempt at territorial acquisition, but that was life in those days) before the Armada (I know that's a long time ago by your standards) - and you spent recent history saying the terrorists bombing civilians to drive us out of there were "freedom fighters". But for some reason you don't apply the same logic to Iraq. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 02:33 AM (#1932963) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger I wouldn't put too much store on Teribus riding to the rescue of the USA - our Terry makes much of his services background as a matelot in the Royal Navy, but it's clear from the tenor of his posts that much of his career was spent polishing the ample seat of his trousers while copying out files for his superiors; large files full of things that he clearly couldn't quite grasp. It's left him with a certain pomposity and willingness to pronounce on weighty issues without quite understanding them and a tendency to tug the forelock and doff his cap to anyone with a bit of scrambled egg. As such his opinions are received rather than arrived at by experience. It would be quite interesting to see what his FIBUA experience is, for example (as it would have been called in his day). Terry is not the one one on this message board who has done his bit to serve and to protect, and some here have actually experienced the sharp end rather than shining their overfilled seats. His comments on Vietnam are insulting and wide of the mark. There's not a huge difference between the men of then and now (except that now they take longer to get fit when recruited). And sadly I fear that yet again the stupidity of commanders is going to result in a lot of those young men dying needlessly. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 04:24 AM (#1933004) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull "...the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in..." Teribus, on what do you base that rather surprising statement? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 05:37 AM (#1933042) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Wolfgang Defiance and delusion (GUARDIAN leader about Bush speech) In opting for a troop surge, Mr Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. Wolfgang |
|
11 Jan 07 - 06:06 AM (#1933061) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Paul from Hull, a number of questions for you: - How many provinces make up the present day country of Iraq? - Scanning the internet and the media, insurgent attacks on MNF/Iraqi forces occur in how many of those provinces on anything that you could refer to as a regular basis? - When was the last time Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq carried out an attack in Iraq? They used to be quite vocal about the atrocities they committed. Since the death of their leader they have been strangely silent. - The stated purpose of the insurgency is to drive the MNF out of Iraq. Why then have the insurgents switched their attacks to the civilian population? - If the insurgency was gaining strength, according to Giap's theories attacks against the MNF would by now be intensifying in scale and effectiveness. Why then are the attacks against the MNF diminishing in scale and becoming less and less effective? - What happened to the forecasted upsurge in insurgent violence in the wake of Saddam's execution? - Afghanistan scan the internet and the media sources. Tell us how many attacks the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda, have carried out in the last week. - Afghanistan scan the internet and the media sources. Tell us how many operations against the Taleban have been mounted with successful results (Most recent I can recall was Operation Clay) - Afghanistan, where is the fighting reported? How many provinces make up Afghanistan? How many are peaceful? - Afghanistan, in 2006 some 4000 people were killed. 1000 of them were civilians, most of whom were killed by the Taleban, the remaining 3000 were either NATO, ISAF, Afghan Army/Police and Taleban. NATO, ISAF, Afghan Army/Police have taken relatively few casualties (UK 44 of whom 21 died in non-combat related accidents), so the bulk of the dead are made up of Taleban. Does that sound as though the Taleban are winning? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 07:34 AM (#1933113) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: catspaw49 Listening to my President, I was proud. Proud to be an American in the 21st century where we know we can kick the livin' shit out of anybody if we just send the right numbers of people and weapons to do the job. I was proud to see that President Bush realizes that Iraq is no Vietnam, that the desert is not the jungle, and that even if he can't find either one on a map he knows that killing more people on all sides is the answer. I was proud to hear my President speak in clear terms and without emotion about the situation we now face. He is so cool and calm and detached it is almost as if he were simply reading a text with many words he didn't understand. His plan makes me proud to see that the United States will be a stand out country in the eyes of the world for many years to come. Spaw, Proud Super Patriot |
|
11 Jan 07 - 08:52 AM (#1933192) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle. Do what is right, not what you think the high headquarters wants or what you think will make you look good. Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy. The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it. When placed in command -- take charge. -- All by H. Norman Schwartzkopf, whose comments about Saddam Hussein I find apply equally well to GWB. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:01 AM (#1933207) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Alba I could not even bring myself to listen, let alone watch, this man tell a Nation that more cannon fodder was required to feed a War that was started by lies and continues based on even more lies. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1933230) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Charley Noble Captain Ginger- Thanks for your post about Teribus above. I've been wondering how someone can achieve such a warped view of the world, and be so hurtful and insulting to others. Of course, he's not alone but what he says adds perspective to threads such as these, and drives people such as me right up the wall! LOL If history teaches us anything, and I sometimes doubt that it does, then there is no way in hell that Bush and his co-belligerents can put the pieces of Iraq back together again. They squandered that opportunity years ago, shortly after they proclaimed "Mission Accomplished!" And I for one won't feel sorry when the last war profiteer gets his fingers blown off turning out the lights as he tries to leave. What a sorry mess! I'm proud that my state's two Republican senators (Snowe and Collins) are still opposed to the Bush "surge." I missed the speech. My banjo needed re-tuning. Charley Noble |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:18 AM (#1933234) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC This was running through my head the whole time I watched the speech, especially the bolded section: Here's to the Bush administration |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:40 AM (#1933260) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man. Norman Schwartzkopf, US general and gulf war commander, describing Saddam Hussein of Iraq, 1991 (and me, describing GWB). |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM (#1933267) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: kendall I couldn't watch or listen. This is the first president in my life that I have detested. Anyway, consider this: We now have an all volunteer military. Are they in the military to stay at their present rank? Take a Major, for instance, or a Colonel, or a one star General. How do they get to be a higher rank? WAR, that's how! Mechanics must find problems to fix on your car, and career military types must have war to advance in rank. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 10:09 AM (#1933299) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Greg B Kendall, it's not war but TIME that leads to greater military rank, just as in most government jobs. Before you say, 'but it will get top-heavy' take a look at the retirement system. One can do very well in the peace-time military, with the added benefit of not getting shot at. But what really bothers me about this whole thing is not Bush---he was a given--- What bothers me are Democrats, like Biden, who are now back-pedaling at doing what it takes to end this thing and bring the troops home, now that they have the power to do so. Biden was on NPR day before yesterday, all but ruling out witholding funds to pursue the war. Using words like "he's the commander-in-chief" blah blah blah. I didn't get out and vote for the Democrats so that they could 'cut and run' from their position of doing whatever it takes to bring the troops home. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM (#1933354) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing JeremyC, did you write that? Well-done! Spaw, drippingly brill! Greg, that's not what I heard on npr, today: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says that President Bush's speech on Iraq offered nothing new. Levin tells Renee Montagne that the president's rhetoric doesn't match the reality on the ground in Iraq. He said a lot more than that. Here's a LINK to the audio. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM (#1933383) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Bill D "war"?? what "war"? No one even pretended to declare a "war". You can't 'win' in a situation where you can't even identify the 'enemy' if he walks down the street beside your tank! We don't HAVE an 'enemy', we have a bunch of guys who don't like us almost as much as they dislike various other guys of different religious sects! WE are just in the way as they try to get control of the area to suit themselves, and they can continue to snipe at us like this for years. We (meaning Bush and his idiot advisors) have a lot to answer for when they were warned by experts how this 'incursion' would likely turn out. Bush used to say- about every two days...."the world is better off with Saddam gone". Uh-huh...right....does it LOOK better off? Bad intelligence, bad planning, bad reasons, bad organization, ......the only thing they were good at was lying to themselves about what they wanted and how they might get it! And when those in power get good at lying to themselves, lying to the rest of us is child's play. I hope Congress finds some way to curtail this latest buildup....lots more Iraqis are going to die before the situation settles down, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO....but it is not necessary that we spend billions more to ensure that a lot more or OUR soldiers die there also! |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:01 PM (#1933402) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Katlaughing, It's my revision/pastiche/theft of the Phil Ochs song "Here's to the State of Mississippi," plus the updated version that Eddie Vedder sang on VH1, because I thought the update was junk. So all I did was use as much of Phil Ochs' original as I could, fit in a couple of elements of the revision (the one or two good parts), and then add what made the most sense to me. So in accordance with tradition, it's by Phil Ochs/arr. me. :) |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:03 PM (#1933404) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Amos War accelerates promotion for those involved in it. But in general the ratio of staff outside the range of a conflict to those involved in any kind of hot action is about 100 : .5 or something of the sort. For the rest, it's time in grade, PR, and occasionally doing something energetic or smart (or, rarely, both). A |
|
11 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM (#1933439) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Maybe it's just me, but I was also thinking of Nixon, Vietnam, and four more years of war. The parallels seem stunning, but then, I'm 30, so I didn't live through it. Can any of you old fogies offer some insights? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM (#1933452) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Yeah. I did live through it (and Unky, not only was I and both my brothers in it, my nephews are in it right now -- how about you? Got any kids in? Or yourself?). And yeah, Jeremy C., it reminds me of LBJ and Vietnam "...and while there really isn't war We're sending fifty thousand more To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese." |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:09 PM (#1933455) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: kendall Clearly the democrats have a tiger by the tail here. They can only end the war by cutting off the money, and that would look like they are not supporting the troops. Promotions in peace time are slow. There is nothing like having the guy one rank above you get killed to advance your advance. Besides, in peace time, we don't need near as many officers. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM (#1933459) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Friend of mine has just made Air Force Colonel -- IF he can find a slot. There are 52 people waiting for an anticipated 16 openings. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM (#1933468) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace That's what Bush wants. What does Congress say? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:32 PM (#1933474) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Wesley S With apologies to Peter Townsend: "Meet the new plan; Same as the old plan" |
|
11 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM (#1933476) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Most of the Democrats in Congress are infuriatingly full of themselves (Obama didn't seem to be, which was nice, but Durbin was especially obnoxious), and after watching all the speechifying, I wasn't sure which party to be more pissed off at. But predictably enough, they were disagreeing and hoping to block the move. I mean, I don't like Bush any more than the Democrats do, but I've gotten to the point where I think both groups are largely a bunch of assholes. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM (#1933495) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA >>282RA: Does RA mean Real A**hole?<< Ah, it's Teribus, posing as a guest. >>You should do your civic duty and sign up for military service if you are physically fit and young enough.<< I told you already that I DID volunteer and I DID serve in the Middle East. You're not paying attention. >>If not, you should encourage others to join.<< HAHAHAHA! That's a good one, Terry! >>Otherwise just keep whining crying, sucking snot and wallowing around in your role as a victim.<< I'd rather do that than to have to defend Bush time after time against his own actions and behavior. >>I know it is difficult to take on the winner mentality because there are so many people with the victim mentality trying to pull you down to their level but it is possible.<< It's hard to take on a winner mentality when you're not winning. In fact, it's idiotic. >>You have my best wishes for your prosperity and well being but do not have my sympathy for your self inflicted state of mind.<< Good, I don't want your sympathy and don't need it and you apparently agree. Thanks, T. >>Uncle Sam<< So now we're American, are we? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 02:33 PM (#1933508) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing JeremyC, I should have recognise Ochs'...I still like your redo! Thansk, again. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM (#1933578) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth One of the people in the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), headquartered in Saddam's imperial palace in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, who was given an assignment, then tried to carry out that assignment, found that the support and back-up from the Bush administration was all but non-existent. His situation was typical. He told Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post), "I am a neoconservative who has just been mugged by reality." Perhaps Teribus needs to be mugged by reality. Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City : Inside Iraq's Green Zone, is fascinating. I challenge Teribus to read it (which he won't, of course, because he is already so stuffed with "knowledge" that he hasn't room for any more). It describes what the agents of the Bush administration are actually doing to try to "win the war" in Iraq and set up a democratic government. If one were to write a treatment for a movie starring a combination of Steve Martin, Jim Carrey, Buster Keaton, the Keystone Kops, and the Three Stooges, it might come close to depicting the incredible combination of ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence that's actually been going on there. When they dissolved the Iraqi army (implemented by "There will be no discussion on this!" Bremer), they rendered next to impossibile control of any insurgency that was bound to arise. A stupid decision, and one of the first of many. Well worth reading if you want to know where your tax dollars are going. It would be absolutely hilarious were it not so freakin' pathetic! Don Firth |
|
11 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM (#1933597) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth That should read ". . . control of any insurgency. . . ." Don Firth
fixed it for ya |
|
11 Jan 07 - 07:17 PM (#1933777) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Teribus, I'm not going to go to the trouble of responding point-by-point to your post...for one thing, I havent the time to check each one, nor could be sure that everything I might Google would be accurate at this present moment. The overall perception of how things are going in both Iraq & Afghanistan is that we are not 'winning', nor is it that a 'win' is imminent....can you dispute that? |
|
11 Jan 07 - 07:56 PM (#1933817) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus "GUEST,282RA - PM Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM >>282RA: Does RA mean Real A**hole?<< Ah, it's Teribus, posing as a guest." MOST DEFINITELY NOT, and Joe Clone can confirm that if you ask him, he can do that without breaching any confidence. Thanks Paul from Hull, although that is the answer I was sort of expecting. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 08:20 PM (#1933833) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Back in the days of the American Revolution, the British soldiers, dressed in red coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. That was the way wars were fought. The problem was that the uncultured and unschooled Colonists, who had never learned how to fight a proper war, didn't line up in ranks—in plain sight—and fire in relays. They dressed in greens and browns, making them hard to see as they hid in the underbrush and behind trees, and fired, not in volleys, but individually, when they spotted a likely target: someone standing in plain sight, made very visible by his red coat, and providing a handy white "X" in the middle of his chest to aim at. Damned un-British, those Colonists! Fighting a war like that just wasn't—well—cricket! Harumph! And furthermore, pshaw!! You can't fight a bunch of guerillas—or terrorists—or insurgents—by going after them with a regular army, even if your army no longer looks like it belongs on a chess board. Obviously, we didn't learn that lesson in Vietnam. And we're not learning it again in Iraq. At least the Commander-in-Chief (who has never fought any kind of war), and his minions, and the Pentagon, haven't learned it. But it would appear that a lot of the American public, along with a fair number of senators and representatives, including a lot of Republicans, are beginning to get the clue. I think that on this one, Bush just run into a brick wall with a mighty SPLAT!! Wile E. Coyote used to do that a lot. Don Firth P. S. And Teribus, the United States will recover just fine, after we get out of that mess that the current batch of crooks and idiots in Washington. D. C. got the country into, and then purge said crooks and idiots. Granted, we're liable to get a whole different batch of crooks and idiots, but that can't help but be an improvement! |
|
11 Jan 07 - 08:20 PM (#1933834) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Well, Teribus, I watch the News, any Documentaries on the subject (there was an interesting Channel 4 'Dispatches' repeated tonight, for instance) and take note of 'news' on the interweb. It doesnt look like its 'winnable', in any meaningful sense of the word, to me. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 08:29 PM (#1933840) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace 1) People often 'see' war in terms of winning or losing and don't understand what the terms means when viewed from the perspective of tactical vs strategic objectives. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Winning may have a completely different meaning in Washington in the minds of the politicians who got the US into the war. To them, until it lands in their laps in lost votes, deaths and injuries mean little. 2) What began as a 'war' with ill-defined objectives has now become a police action. Quoting a line from MASH: If this is a police action--then referring to Korea--then why didn't they send cops? Asking soldiers to be cops is stupid. They are not. The roles of cops and soldiers are very different. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:09 PM (#1933861) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth ". . . why didn't they send cops?" Exactly so, Peace. That's what they should have done right from the start. The folks who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not associated with any particular nation, although most of them were Saudis. They undoubtedly regard themselves as "freedom fighters" or something like that, as angry at their own government as they were at us, and it was not that their motivation was that they "hate our way of life." For an idea of what they really hated, see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. If we were going to treat them as the criminals that they were (no matter how justified they may have felt, murdering innocent civilians is a crime), we should have made use of the combined resources of various nations' intelligence services and gone after them in surgical strikes—i.e., we should have sent in the cops. Declaring a "War on Terror" is sort of like declaring a "War on Hemorrhoids." The illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 just provided a handy excuse for the neo-cons in the Bush administration to do what they wanted to do anyway: try to solidify the United States as the world's only superpower by gaining geopolitical control over Iraq's oil resources. The hand on the tap gets to chose who gets the oil—and, perhaps more importantly—who doesn't. Don Firth |
|
11 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM (#1933887) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Arne Charley Noble: I missed the speech. My banjo needed re-tuning. You tune your banjo?!?!? Cheers, |
|
11 Jan 07 - 10:06 PM (#1933906) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Don, your little essay on the fighting in the revolutionary war tends to repeat an oft-repeated myth or at least partial myth about the fighting that took place in that war. You said: "Back in the days of the American Revolution, the British soldiers, dressed in red coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. That was the way wars were fought." Yes. Indeed it was. That was how you fought a large battle in the open. And most of the larger and more significant battles in that war were fought by American regular troops who dressed in blue coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. ;-) They were damn near as easy to shoot at as the British. The French regulars dressed in white uniforms and did the same thing. Very noticeable. And they also fought the British in the traditional fashion most of the time. Add to that the fact that the British made heavy used of Indian warbands, Indians being the consumate masters of wilderness warfare, to fight the revolutionary forces, and you will see that the old "we won because we could fight in the woods and the British couldn't" is mostly a popular myth that has been perpetuated by a nation understandably in love with its coonskin cap brigade of heroes. Both sides had troops who could fight very effectively in the woods...and did. Both sides had large numbers of uniformed regulars who fought in large, rigid formations out in the open, using artillery and entrenchments...as in Europe. They ALL lined up and blasted away at each other in volleys in that case. I just mention it because I'm fond of history. ;-) Other than that, I agree with your general position in this debate. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM (#1933916) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee King's Mountain, LH. But yes, the Rebels (and their allies) did use massed unit fire as much as the British (and their allies). The uniforms were not, however, either red or blue. Some were green, some brown, and a variety of other colors (including black). The Rebels might wear "blue and buff" but that was towards the end -- lots of times they wore whatever they could get. The riflemen of the British, as well as their Jaeger Hessian allies, wore green, possibly with red piping. Quite confusing, really. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 10:20 PM (#1933922) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Right on, Rapaire. You are absolutely correct in supplying those additional colorful details about the Revolutionary War. Kind of like the Civil War...there were a bewildering variety of different uniforms worn on both sides in that one too, the most garish being those that belonged to the Zouaves (both Yankee and Confederate versions). I think what finally beat the British was not their uniforms or their tactics, but a number of much more significant political, psychological, and social factors...we've talked about it a good deal on other threads in the past. |
|
11 Jan 07 - 11:04 PM (#1933958) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam So 282RA is one of those Canadian wimps that like to run away whenever there is trouble? US |
|
11 Jan 07 - 11:13 PM (#1933961) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Sometimes, Uncle Sham, getting out as gracefully as possible is the best thing you can do. Especially if you started the trouble in the first place. Don Firth |
|
11 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM (#1933963) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Guest (Uncle Sham)--please tell us about your military service--especially your combat service. Thanks so much. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 03:03 AM (#1934032) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk We Canadian wimps took Washington in the War of 1812 and we burned the White House down, Uncle Sam. ;-) We also defeated every attempt your guys made to invade Canada during that war. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM (#1934585) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth By the way, Little Hawk, regarding the American Revolution being "chessboard" style warfare, what you say is essentially accurate—but not totally. Although the American Revolution was not primarily a guerilla war, there was a substantial amount of that going on, much to the exasperation of the British. I quote the following from The Encyclopedia of American History: American guerrilla warfare during colonial times, the Revolution, and the War of 1812 was based to a large degree on knowledge of the Indian tactics of hit-and-run raids, ambush, and cover and concealment. During the Revolutionary War, for example, Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox" of the southern campaign, used these techniques against the more traditionally organized British forces.In addition, there was Ethan Allen and the "Green Mountain Boys" who used guerilla tactics. And, of course, there were the famous "Minutemen" (undoubtedly the historical basis for the inclusion of the controversial Second Amendment), civilians who owned their own guns and were prepared to be called up on a minute's notice. From the same source cited above: Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and had to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmans' clothes, while others had buckskin hunting outfits. Some added Indian-style touches to intimidate the enemy, even including war-paint. Most used hunting rifles, which did not have bayonets but were accurate at long range.Don Firth |
|
12 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM (#1934597) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk True enough, Don. The locals always have an innate advantage when it comes to practicing guerilla warfare against a foreign army, which was your original point. They also have the advantage that they are probably not going to leave or quit fighting, because they were born there. ;-) Thus they tend to outlast the occupiers. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM (#1934662) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Just a little aside relating to the War of 1812. We not only burned the White House, we took their dinner service. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars it was presented to the Duke of Wellington and used in his London home, Apsley House. Apsley House is used by British Prime Ministers on occasion for formal dinners. So when the British Prime Minister hosts a banquet in honour of a visiting President of the United States, the guest is actually eating from plates and cutlery that by rights are actually his. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM (#1934665) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk My goodness! That is a fascinating tidbit of information indeed. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 05:08 PM (#1934700) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA >>So 282RA is one of those Canadian wimps that like to run away whenever there is trouble?<< And you call me an asshole. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM (#1934706) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA >>Apsley House is used by British Prime Ministers on occasion for formal dinners. So when the British Prime Minister hosts a banquet in honour of a visiting President of the United States, the guest is actually eating from plates and cutlery that by rights are actually his.<< What's so surprising about that. The British are the biggest cultural thieves in the world. The British Museum is teaming with artifacts stolen from other countries. The British looted the Imperial Palace in Forbidden City in Beijing (Peking). That swag is still on display at the museum. Why did they loot it? Because the Chinese dared to rebel against this monstrous nation forcing opium down their throats. Not far from this Chinese exhibit is the Greek one containing unique, ancient works from this once-great civilization. The Greek govt wants it back because they never gave to the British. They simply took it. I hear Britain is going down the shitter these days. High time and much deserved and good riddance to the biggest imperialists in the human history. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 05:20 PM (#1934712) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger Aw, c'mon bombardier - you chaps in North America did your bit. The White Man's Burden was aimed at an American audience when Kipling wrote it. Puff yourself up with pride at this little adventure. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 05:37 PM (#1934723) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA Just like the Brits to lecture the rest of the world about their own imperialism. Hide behind America--which what your nation ALWAYS does--and then you can lecture them about their vices while you ignore your own. There has never been anything as horrible and brutal as the British Empire. And isn't it funny that when our dumbfuck president wanted to invade Iraq for no good reason, who jumped up and yelled, "Ooooo! Can we come too? Can we help??" Now, look at you--trying to sneak out of there and pretend you didn't play a major role in the rape and destruction of that country. What I don't get is that Brtain KNEW the invasion was wrong--the Downing Street Memos proved that--and they went along anyway. That's really telling us something about that country. That's really the problem--you haven't changed. You just push your imperialist agenda by hiding behind America. Well, hide no more because America is going down the shitter too. And for the same well-deserved reasons. That's how any nation should know when it is about to do something unethical--when Britain wants to tag along. Then you know it's wrong. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 06:15 PM (#1934756) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Look, 282RA, please don't hold back. Just say what's on your mind, okay? |
|
12 Jan 07 - 06:33 PM (#1934769) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Isn't diplomacy a wonderful thing? (All choked up with emotion . . . *sob*) Don Firth |
|
12 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM (#1934780) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Heh! The USA and Great Britain are equally imperialistic in general tendency...it's just that the USA is the predominant power now, and Britain tags along. The crucial difference, as far as I can see, is that it was much easier to fool a majority of Americans into supporting the Iraq war. A majority of UK citizens were opposed to the idea. The British population is not quite so naive, I suppose. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 08:25 PM (#1934852) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Charley Noble If we only had a queen! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
12 Jan 07 - 08:32 PM (#1934859) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Two to choose from, Charlie. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM (#1934940) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies LH--how many Canadians were involved in taking DC in the War of 1812? Do you have any idea? I had thought the attackers were British. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM (#1934967) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace It only required five Canucks, Ron. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM (#1934974) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Yeah, 2 moose, 2 beaver, and a courier du bois named Jacques, by Gar! ;-) We Canadians were the British back then, Don. We had not yet become separate in identity. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM (#1934978) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace In fact, the Halibut Treaty of 1923 was the first international treaty that Canada negotiated and signed on its own behalf. It was with the USA. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM (#1934984) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Dat's right. And de t'ing is, dem goddam Americans, by Gar, dey took more fish dan dey were allowed to by dat treaty in nineteen twenny-tree, dose bastard! Tabernac! We should 'ave burn down dat Washington place again, mes amis, dat's what I'm t'inking! |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:38 PM (#1934986) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Hey LH--that's not fair--you get to pick which British engagements you were involved in? You get the glory of burning the White House but not the Battle of New Orleans? (I'll certainly give you all the US failed stupidly naive attempts to take Canada--evidently the Americans were convinced the French Canadians were itching to throw off the "British yoke"--not realizing that conservative French Canadians did not identify with France at that point--under Napoleon-- at all.) Among--many--other miscalculations. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM (#1934988) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Your point is a good one, Ron. ;-) Just keep in mind that I was retaliating against some ignorant twerp who suggested earlier that all Canadians are wimps, so I thought I'd meet him on his own level, as it were... |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM (#1934991) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam None But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over. In 1814 we took a little trip Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans. [Chorus:] We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin. There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago. We fired once more and they began to runnin' on Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. We looked down the river and we see'd the British come. And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum. They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring. We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing. [Chorus] Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well. Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well [Chorus] Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.** We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down. So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round. We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind. [Chorus] Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go. They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.** |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:49 PM (#1934995) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,REX-84 Just taking the new name out for a test. Is that the criteria now, to post here? And does anyone know if this one is taken? There's probably a list of the member names somewhere, and this one could be on it. If someone could kindly let me know. Thank you. |
|
12 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM (#1934997) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Great powers have no friends, "Uncle Sam". They have interests. When their interests coincide, they help each other. I'll tell you what saved England from the Nazis: A hell of a good air defence system, some timely errors on the part of the German high command (who kept changing their objectives in the Battle of Britain), and the Russians!!!!!!!! The bulk of the German army perished on the steppes of Russia, and it was the Russian campaign which broke Germany's fighting strength in that war. So going by your logic, we should like the Russians quite a bit better than we do you... ;-) |
|
13 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM (#1935003) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Now the US again has stupidly naive leadership for an invasion. Why, it's just like old times. I'm getting so nostalgic. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 12:16 AM (#1935006) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Hey, Uncle Sham--with your great enthusiasm for war, you were going to tell us about your own personal military experience, with particular emphasis on your combat experience. Seems you must have forgotten to do that--so how about right now? |
|
13 Jan 07 - 12:23 AM (#1935011) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam So the Normandy invasion was unnecessary, unwanted by the Brits and it did not have any impact on the outcome of the war? Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941. Earlier, there was an entirely separate program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for base rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved [due to the protests of anti-war wimps] and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, equipping US forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a fourth of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft comprised about one-fourth of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM (#1935018) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Encyclopædia Britannica tells the story of the Normandy Invasion: On June 6, 1944, a date known ever since as D-Day, a mighty armada crossed a narrow strip of sea from England to Normandy, France, and cracked the Nazi grip on western Europe. Omaha Beach Second beach from the west among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the U.S. 29th and 1st infantry divisions, many of whose soldiers were drowned during the approach from ships offshore or were killed by defending fire from German troops placed on heights surrounding the beach. Utah Beach The westernmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by elements of the U.S. 4th Infantry Division and was taken with relatively few casualties. In the predawn hours of D-Day, units of the 82nd and 101st airborne divisions were airdropped inland from the landing beach. They suffered many casualties from drowning and enemy fire but succeeded in their aim of isolating the seaborne invasion force from defending Germans. Sword Beach Tthe easternmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 3rd Division, with French and British commandos attached. Shortly after midnight on D-Day morning, elements of the 6th Airborne Division, in a daring glider-borne assault, seized bridges inland from the beach and also silenced artillery pieces that threatened the seaborne landing forces. Gold Beach The centre beach of the five designated landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted and taken from defending German troops on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the British 50th Infantry Division. Juno Beach The second beach from the east among the five landing areas of the Normandy Invasion of World War II. It was assaulted on June 6, 1944 (D-Day of the invasion), by units of the Canadian 3rd Infantry Division, who took heavy casualties in the first wave but by the end of the day succeeded in wresting control of the area from defending German troops. Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over 209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British, Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces. The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded. The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the 425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket (August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000, including prisoners. Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 04:30 AM (#1935078) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Just a couple of little notes to Guest Uncle Sam and to Guest 282AR. Guest 282AR first: "The British are the biggest cultural thieves in the world. The British Museum is teaming with artifacts stolen from other countries. The British looted the Imperial Palace in Forbidden City in Beijing (Peking). That swag is still on display at the museum. Why did they loot it? Because the Chinese dared to rebel against this monstrous nation forcing opium down their throats." Called war reparations, was universally carried on by all victors in varying degrees throughout history. The time that it was demonstrably taken to excess was by the Allies at the end of the First World War, the burden of reparations that they placed on Germany meant that the Second World War was more or less inevitable. Standard practice of the day 282AR - nothing was stolen - take a bit of consolation in that those artifacts are safe and well cared for. "Not far from this Chinese exhibit is the Greek one containing unique, ancient works from this once-great civilization. The Greek govt wants it back because they never gave to the British. They simply took it." These are the Elgin Marbles you are referring to Guest 282AR. Once again you are wrong, the "Marbles" are the property of Lord Elgin (who counts Robert the Bruce amongst his ancestors), they are on permanent loan to the museum (IIRC). Lord Elgin actually has a signed receipt for them. He bought them from the Turkish Governor of Athens (Greece did not exist at the time). The reason Elgin bought the marble fresco sections was because at the time the Parthenon was being used as a powder magazine (it later blew up) and the marble frescos were being stripped off the building and burnt down to provide whitewash for buildings - he bought them to save them. So chances are that if they were not now residing in the museum, they wouldn't exist at all. Any of the above 282AR any official guide at the Acropolis in Athens will tell you. So nothing was "simply taken". To Guest Uncle Sam: I would draw your attention to a speech made by Churchill early summer in 1940 around the time of Dunkirk in which he said, " Hitler knows he must defeat us on this island or lose the war". Not withstanding the enormous contribution made by both the United States of America and the USSR to the allied war effort - Hitler knew that he had failed to defeat Britain by the end of September 1940 which predates your lend-lease act by quite a number of months. As for the 50 old obsolete "four stack" destroyers - hate to point this out to you Uncle Sam but we paid for those and paid for those at the time they were handed over. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM (#1935191) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Teribus-- "I would draw your attention to"--the actual topic of this thread. You have yet to even start to make the case that Bush is Churchill, that this year is 1940, etc. Also: Saddam is: 1) a megalomaniac bent on world conquest--as you might want to argue Hitler was in 1940. 2) dead Gee, I wonder which one of these is right. And it certainly is revealing how many statesmen are coming around to what I've been saying for over a year--and you've been denying: probably the most important question in Iraq right now is: can the Iraqi Sunnis, derided by you as the equivalent of hardline Nazis in 1945, trust the Iraqi police? And its corollary--will Maliki actually purge the police of Shiite militias--instead of just talking about it? Your attitude-that the Sunnis should just accept the new situation--has been wrong from the start--and is still wrong. It's also interesting that somehow you've forgotten to answer my earlier question to you: how long would you accept the situation if your own police were targeting you for the crime of just being Catholic, Protestant, Irish, English, Welsh, Scots--without regard to what you had personally done? Which is precisely analogous to what you are saying the Sunnis should do--accept it. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM (#1935306) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Well, it's no wonder the country is in the shitter when even a small internet community can't discuss Bush's speech without heading into a bunch of retarded, racist, off-topic bickering. Way to go, guys! USA NUMBAR OEN!! |
|
13 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM (#1935324) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk It is quite refreshing to find myself and Teribus on the same side of an argument for a change! ;-) Uncle Sam, I never said that the USA had not helped the UK during the war, did I? No, I didn't. However, the USA did not save the UK, the UK saved themselves. Their winning of the Battle of Britain prevented the Germans from defeating England, and there was really no possibility of the Germans defeating England following that. That was in September 1940. I know you've grown up on a diet of Hollywood movies where the USA always arrives like the cavalry with John Wayne at the head of the troops and wins everything for everyone, but it just ain't so in real life. The entrance of the USA into WWII in December '41 was simply the driving of the final nails into the coffin of Germany's hopes for victory. The Germans had already gotten themselves by that time into a war they simply could not win...with Russia and the British empire. To add the USA to their troubles at that point was to make an already impossible situation a good deal worse, and all the wiser and more rational German commanders knew that. Ernst Udet, for example, was so depressed by the failure of the Battle of Britain, compounded by the insanity of then attacking Russia, that he committed suicide. (Udet was a tremendously courageous and capable man who had been a high-scoring ace for Germany in the First World War, and then had gone on to serve in the Luftwaffe High Command. When the Battle of Britain failed, Reichsmarshall Goering falsely shifted the blame to Ernst Udet...which was just Goering blaming other people for his own errors. Udet was very upset about it. Then when Hitler decided to attack Russia, Udet, like many other German officers, was simply appalled. He saw the handwriting on the wall...defeat and disaster. He had lost faith in the Nazi government at that point, and he figured all was lost, so he shot himself.) If you could think in shades of gray, Uncle Sam, rather than insisting on total opposites of extreme white and black, you would see that I am not saying that the USA did not help the UK in WWII...I am simply saying this: They did not save them. The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM (#1935328) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam The point of mentioning Lend Lease was to illustrate that the American people were vehemently against entering the war or even supplying war materiel. The liberal Democrat, FDR, found a way around this with lend lease and even blatantly lying to the American public to give material assistance. Without that assistance the war would have lasted longer and more lives would have been lost. FDR did everything that Bush is accused of doing illegally and more. It took Pearl Harbor to change popular opinion. I think the topic here is Bush's speech and actions are all wrong. If you put it into context, perspective and pay attention to lessons learned from history, a different conclusion can be drawn. At the very least a wait and see attitude is called for. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 01:10 PM (#1935337) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull *YAWN* |
|
13 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM (#1935338) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk What you say about FDR is mostly correct. He was dealing with an isolationist public and Congress. From a pragmatic point of view, he did the right thing. Bush, however, has made great mistakes in my opinion, and I do not think his position in regards to his "enemies" around the world is in any way comparable to the situation FDR faced with regard to Nazi Germany and Japan. Germany was a major power and a major threat to other nations, at one point (roughly '41-'42) was second to none in military capability, and was in a period of aggressive expansion onto other people's territory. That description is one that fits not America's ragtag Islamic enemies at this time in history...it fits America itself. Like a glove. America is the nation that attacks pre-emptively. America is the nation that invades. America is the nation that occupies foreign lands. You guys are NOT the victim, you are the perpetrator. And the UK and Canada and Australia are complicit in assisting you in your aggression, as are a few other minor participants. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM (#1935346) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam Hummmm. What was all that rot about the sun never sets on the British Empire? I don't recall a similar claim by the US. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM (#1935770) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,petr the one event that helped the Americans win the revolutionary war was Benjamin Franklins eventual success in getting the French to send over an army. regarding the Schwarzkopf quote - its hard to imagine the US losing the 91 gulf war given the firepower, number of troops and total superiority the US and the coalition had. (and yet... Schwarzkopf claimed that when the Iraqis sat down to negotiate they outsmarted the US by asking if they could fly helicopters. (Schwarzkopf felt that since the roads were destroyed that it was ok, when they then asked if they could fly ARMED helicopters - he decided thats ok too). (which they then used to brutally put down the rebellion - that George Senior called for - with his comment that the Iraqi people should rise up and topple Saddam).. one thing that (Damn they Outsmarted us!) Schwarzkopf failed to mention in his memoirs is that -and that is obvious to everyone- the US had complete military (land air) superiority , why should a bunch of Iraqi negotiators have any power at all? |
|
13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM (#1935772) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk The sun never sets on the USA financial/military/media-controlled empire either. It's the same thing. You don't need official colonialism to have actual colonialism. Similarly, you don't need official slavery to have actual slavery. Both can be easily achieved unofficially if you have enough money to buy and control client governments in small countries, and enough firepower to smash them up when they don't do what you want them to. So you see, when society modernized enough that official colonialism and official slavery became morally unacceptable to most people...well, then, new ways were quickly found to do it which were unofficial, but equally effective. The new unofficial colonialism is accomplished the same way the old official colonialism was: by having enough money and firepower to exercise control over other people against their will. Every major power practices colonialism, they just don't call it that anymore. The USA, being the biggest major power, practices it the most at present, and the British are right in there with them. The USA is really the new incarnation of the old British Empire. It is to the UK as Rome was to Greece. It's still an Anglo-dominated world out there. The last serious challenger against that Anglo domination was the Soviets, and they lost most of their empire when they started running out of money. |
|
13 Jan 07 - 10:10 PM (#1935823) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam So the UK brags about their empire. The US does not have an empire except in the minds of some no life whiners. What was the Great Expulsion of 1755 all about? |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM (#1935892) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Revisionist history, Uncle Sam. FDR did not lie to the American people about the Lend-Lease program. I was a kid at the time, but old enough to know who was saying what, and we always listened to FDR's "Fireside Chats." I remember his talking quite a bit about the Lend-Lease program. There's a lot of revisionist history about FDR, generally promulgated by columnist Westbrook Pegler, the Rush Limbaugh of his day, and still embraced by the far right. Any attempt to compare Bush with someone like FDR is ludicrous. A bit like trying to compare a chihuahua to a lion. Don Firth |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:26 AM (#1935901) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ebbie "The UK was quite capable of saving itself, actually, and already had done so by September 1940." Damn, Little Hawk. I wish we had just stayed home. We needed those boys for the Eastern theatre. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM (#1935924) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Well, let me make it a bit clearer what I mean. ;-) I said they had saved themselves by September 1940, which they had. I did not say they had defeated Germany by September 1940, they had merely prevented Germany from defeating them. They did not have the power alone to defeat Germany nor did Germany have the means to defeat them, as had already been amply proven. An alliance of the UK, Russia and the USA was required to defeat Germany. Uncle Sam's original statement which I took issue with was "But the US did save the UK from the Nazis even after they fucked us over." Wrong. The USA very much helped the British and Russians defeat the Germans...which took a lot of time and blood, and the American effort was fully appreciated by the British and Russians...but the USA did not save the British, because the British had quite handily already saved themselves in 1940, and Hitler knew it. He was confounded by the Luftwaffe's failure to defeat the RAF in 1940 and he reacted by doing absolutely the worst thing possible....he turned East and attacked Russia! He then did a further idiotic thing by immediately declaring war on the USA right after Pearl Harbour happened. He did NOT have to do that, because the Japanese had certainly given him no help in fighting anyone up to that point. I fear that Bush may make a somewhat (if only vaguely) comparable mistake to Hitler's attack on Russia by reacting to the insoluble mess he has created in Iraq by next attacking Iran. If so, he will find, like Hitler, that enlarging an insoluble problem is the worst move you can make. If he does it, though, I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM (#1935929) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ebbie OK, she harrumphed, simmering down. "I think it's a fair bet that the USA media will temporarily manage to convince a large proportion of the American public that "Iran has to be stopped now and we have to do it". I have faith in the gullibility of the American voter." Little Hawk God, I hope not. It is beyond amazing to me that I live amongst people who imo clearly see the perilous situation we've gotten ourselves into led by an idiot. In Alaska, I don't even know anyone who is even close to sanguine. One part I see very clearly is that in the USA we have a lousy government. We need a mechanism for turning them out midstream. 'Loss of confidence' is an excellent, and telling, phrase. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 01:16 AM (#1935937) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk It's my opinion, by the way, that no one country acting alone could have defeated the Germans in a land war in western and central Europe after their lopsided victory in the Battle of France. The English certainly could not have done it alone. The USA could not have done it alone either...they needed the UK as a staging ground for fullscale invasion of Europe, and they needed the Russians to tie down 3/4 of the German army for them. The Russians might have been able to defeat the Germans alone...in a very long war of attrition...but I doubt it. I think more likely that it would have ended in a stalemate or that the Germans would have won such a conflict. And to look at it from the other angle...the Germans could not have defeated the USA or Great Britain either, simply because the Germans lacked a big enough navy to project their formidable army across either the English Channel or the Atlantic. They also lacked the kind of large strategic bomber aircraft needed to wage a really effective strategic bombing campaign that could cripple an opponent's industrial base. The only people in WWII who had such aircraft in large numbers were the British and the Americans. Those aircraft were the B-17, the Lancaster, the Halifax, the Stirling, and the B-24. Germany's He 111s, Ju 88s, and Dornier 17s were not 4 engine strategic bombers, they were 2 engine tactical bombers, and they were not up to the task of waging a strategic bombing campaign. The Russians, likewise, lacked such capability, having an almost entirely tactical airforce suited to close support on the battlefield. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM (#1936278) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Uncle Sam In a deleted post I said that if America had not entered the War it would have continued much longer and more lives would have been lost. In addition to that I would like to add that Germany still would have lost but there would be almost nothing left of England. It would have been a bitter bloddy fight to the end. America did add muscle and resources that I am sure Brits are grateful. Again Pearl Harbor was the turning point for the US that shut up all the anti war whiners. I suppose it will take another 9/11 to shut them up again. As Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Ortega, Raoul Castro, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa are forming a coalition of Latin American countrys to screw the people of the US, While Al Qaeda trys to take control of Somalia, while the genocide of Christians by Muslims proceeds on Darfur, all the anti-war whiners can think about is getting out of Iraq and impeaching George Bush. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM (#1936299) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull I'm curious, Uncle Sam, as to what you think would have caused there to be "almost nothing left of England? V-weapons? |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM (#1936312) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger Interesting geography there, Uncle Sam, claiming Ahmadinejad as a Latin American. Is this why the USA invaded the wrong country after 9/11? |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM (#1936317) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull *LOL* |
|
14 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM (#1936321) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Nobody Look up the "McCollum Plan" for an understanding of how FDR got the U.S. into WW2. Americans wouldn't support involvement in Europe, so the Japanese were forced to attack. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 02:17 PM (#1936388) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Yes, that is essentially correct. Roosevelt initiated trade sanctions against Japan in 1941, cutting off their foreign sources of oil and steel, and they were forced to either unilaterally surrender without a fight, give up in China and elsewhere, go home, and become a 3rd rate power...or attack the USA and Great Britain and Holland (the overseas Dutch possessions, that is). Being of a samurai character (samurai do NOT surrender), they naturally did the inevitable and attacked the USA, Britain, and Dutch East Asia (where the oil was). So Roosevelt engineered the "Day of Infamy" as surely as if he had delivered the orders himself. It makes his big display of outrage in Congress after the fact look pretty phony, in retrospect. What an act! I think, though, that he was very surprised just how effective the Japanese navy and air force turned out to be....so he may well have been very upset all right. He probably did not expect them to do nearly so much damage when they struck. Their quality level had been grossly underestimated by everyone in the US military except Claire Chennault, commander of the American Volunteer Group in China (the Flying Tigers). Chennault knew better. He had been fighting the Japanese air force already, and knew how good they were. I'm telling you, Uncle Sam, the only reason you disagree with my viewpoint on the roles of the USA and its so-called "enemies" is that you are blissfully unaware that it is the USA that has caused the present conflicts by its own policies...and it is not the USA that is the victim. The small countries that you named are all its victims. The USA is now doing what Nazi Germany did in the 30's. It's doing what Japan did in East Asia in the 30's. It's doing what Rome did once to the people all around it. It's doing what conquering empires do...it's attacking smaller nations and devouring and enslaving them, by means of money, media, and firepower. Your only error is that you can't see that you happen to be living in a great aggressor nation...not a nation that defends itself legitimately at all, but a nation that attacks others, drives them to absolute despair...at which point they fight back as best they possibly can. You're in good company. Millions upon hundreds of millions of Germans, Japanese, Romans, Greeks, British, Persians, and citizens of other great imperial empires in the past have made the same simple mistake you are making...imagining that they were legitimately defending themselves, when in fact they were serving the greatest aggressor power of their time. So I am not surprised that you don't get it. You're just like most other people. They always think it's "the other guy" who caused all the trouble. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:44 PM (#1936720) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Hey you guys, don't be hard on "Uncle Sam". As a stalwart Bush supporter, he used up all his brain power typing "Ahmadinejad" correctly. You can't expect him to get Iran in the right hemisphere. It's not reasonable. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM (#1936724) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Oh, God.... (laughing helplessly) Now, Ron, don't be cruel. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM (#1936759) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies It's like one of my cats--my cat has used up all his brain power in looking good. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 08:26 PM (#1936761) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies (our cats--in case Jan sees this--she actually does a lot more cat care than I do--uh oh-sounds like THREAD CREEP) |
|
14 Jan 07 - 09:17 PM (#1936780) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Nobody (FDR implemented the McCollum Plan and then monitored Japanese transmissions. He knew well before the attack that Pearl Harbor was going to be hit): ...Admiral Husband E. Kimmel had replaced the fired Admiral Richardson. Again, he knew nothing specific about the coming attack, but to protect the fleet he sent his battleships out of Pearl with forty other vessels and aerial reconnaissance. Washington ordered those ships back to Pearl and told Kimmel to stop aerial reconnaissance. The ships wound up beside each other at anchor. The approaching Japanese broke radio silence 28 times. Both Army and Navy intelligence knew exactly where they were, but the White House instructed them not to tell Kimmel and General Walter Short. Foreign vessels were also receiving those Japanese signals, but our commanders were deliberately kept in the dark. Even the Oahu radar station was shut down, which blinded Pearl Harbor. On December 6th, 1941, Roosevelt read a message from Tokyo to its Japanese embassy and said, "This means war." On his desk, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall had a telephone that was a direct line to Pearl. He could have picked it up and given General Short crucial hours of warning. Instead, he sent a commercial telegram. Needless to say, when somebody finally handed Short the telegram, the attack was already under way. "Dear General Short, You will be attacked." While Short was being bombed, Marshall was horseback riding that Sunday morning.... http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/ROOSEV~1.htm ...Kimmel and Short were not even sent the Bomb Plot messages that were obtained between September 24th and December 7th, although they were sent in the J-l9 and PA-K2 codes which were less secret than Purple and could have been read at Pearl Harbor at any time by Commander (now Captain) Joseph J. Rochefort, Admiral Bloch's talented and experienced cryptanalyst and Communications Intelligence officer, if he had been assigned this duty. These Bomb Plot messages, as we have seen, pinpointed Pearl Harbor as the first target of any Japanese Surprise attack.... ...If he could have received these J-19 and PA-K2 messages that carried the Bomb Plot material, decoded and translated them, and turned them over to Kimmel and Short, there can be no reasonable doubt that these commanders would have taken defensive actions long before November 25th that would have called a halt to Yamamoto's plan to send a task force to attack Pearl Harbor.... http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/ph25_4.html (FDR then left civilians behind in the Phillipines, to whip up war fever): Hundreds of former US prisoners of war have begun a battle for compensation after uncovering documents that allegedly prove the wartime administration deliberately used them as a tool to whip up domestic support for war with Japan. A former prisoner has uncovered papers in the US National Archive that she claims prove the government restricted the travel of 7,000 American citizens from the Philippines, while at the same time encouraging evacuation of Americans from other potential Japanese targets in China and south-east Asia. A federal lawsuit filed yesterday in Washington, DC, alleges that the government at first wanted to keep Americans in the Philippines to discourage Japanese aggression, but later used them as a political tool. A group of 500 former prisoners claim the plan was devised by the US wartime leader, Franklin D Roosevelt. with the approval of Winston Churchill, Britain's Prime Minister, to cause outrage among American citizens unwilling to back a war on Japan. Americans were denied passport and travel documents to let them flee. They were later captured by the Japanese and held in notorious camps under appalling conditions.... http://www.rense.com/general27/ph.htm (George W. Bush tried FRD's Phillipine tactic in during the recent attack by Israel on Lebanon. A few thousand dead Americans, blame it on Hezbollah or al Qaida...that would be helpful to the "war effort," wouldn't it): BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - An eight-deck cruise liner carrying more than 1,000 Americans sailed out of Beirut's port Wednesday, the first mass U.S. evacuation from Lebanon since Israeli airstrikes started more than a week ago.... ...Many of those aboard were relieved to depart, after complaints of slow action by the United States compared to European countries that sent cruise ships, ferries and warships over the past three days to move out thousands.... http://www.journaltimes.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=6890 (Government-sponsored terrorism works. Don't fall for it) |
|
14 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM (#1936816) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ebbie Hey, Guest Nobody, I don't like the link you posted (It is not only bigoted but illiterate). Therefore I must ask if that is your only source for your assertions. Among other lovely things it says, regarding FDR's supposed Jewish ancestry: "From the viewpoint of eugenics, it explains his natural bent toward radicalism. "It shows why he has given hundreds of so-called Liberals, Socialists and Communists powerful positions in the national government. It reveals the origin of the sinister spirit which today animates the White House. It proves unmistakably, that the Roosevelt Administration offers a biological, as well as a political problem." |
|
14 Jan 07 - 10:45 PM (#1936845) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Liberals, Socialists, Communists.....sinister spirit which now animates the White House? As if the "sinister spirit" has anything to do with liberals. This just shows the hopeless confusion in the mind of whoever put this stuff together. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM (#1936872) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST FDR and George Marshall were responsible for Pearl Harbor. Why do you try to divert from the message to the messenger? The Kimmel / Richardson information is at a hundred sites on the internet. Pick one that's more literate. Pick one that's less "bigoted" in your opinion. The facts of Pearl Harbor will still be the same. Maybe this is why George W. Bush was nearly able to get away with the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Lebanon, because people like you want to quibble over internet links. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM (#1936874) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Nobody FDR and George Marshall were responsible for Pearl Harbor. Why do you try to divert from the message to the messenger? The Kimmel / Richardson information is at a hundred sites on the internet. Pick one that's more literate. Pick one that's less "bigoted" in your opinion. The facts of Pearl Harbor will still be the same. Maybe this is why George W. Bush was nearly able to get away with the sacrifice of thousands of Americans in Lebanon, because people like you want to quibble over internet links. |
|
15 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM (#1936905) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Yet another GUEST (or is it the same one) who doesn't know anything but how to cut-and-paste and to spew hatred for things and people he (or she) really doesn't know anything about. Cuts and pastes from the gamier websites. This is not a matter of "killing the messenger." This is a matter of reading the message, judging it for what it is, and writing off the messenger as just another slime-ball. Don Firth |
|
15 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM (#1936919) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Well, Don, I don't know about George Marshall one way or the other, but I do know that FDR cut off Japanese access to oil and steel in 1940, because he knew that if he did they would be forced to respond by going to war. He wanted them to, because he needed a way to get the USA into the war so he could defeat Germany. Do I judge FDR badly for so doing? Maybe...and maybe not. It's a mixed picture. I think he was quite realistic about the Nazis, and if that was the only way to get the isolationist USA in the mood for war...then perhaps that was the best thing to do. In doing it one had necessarily to mislead and betray various of one's own people and put them in harm's way, but things like that happen all the time in politics and war. It goes with being a politician. I don't think FDR was any worse than most. He was probably better than many. He was fortunate to be on the winning side, though, because winning generally absolves all blame when it comes to that sort of thing. Few questions are asked afterward when you win. When you lose, you may end up being put on trial and hanged. |
|
15 Jan 07 - 01:17 AM (#1936925) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Barry Finn Sorry that I'm drifting back on subject. Bush was on "60 Minutes" eariler this evening trying to re-explain himself. He did such a poor job that I couldn't take more than a few minutes of his torture & begged to change the channel. Barry |
|
15 Jan 07 - 01:21 AM (#1936927) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Heh! I bet it really ticks him off that he is obliged to explain things at all... Takes all the fun out of being "Commander In Chief", after all. What's the use of being Commander in Chief when people want explanations for your every decision? Attila never had to put up with guff like that, and neither did Julius Caesar. |
|
15 Jan 07 - 02:30 AM (#1936965) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Nobody Well if FDR was right to arrange the attack at Pearl Harbor (or at least sit passively by and do nothing), then Bush was right to arrange 9/11 (or at least sit passively by and do nothing). After all, the Nazis were a threat that had to be dealt with. And after all, the Moslems are a threat that need to be dealt with. The Roosevelt cabal was responsible for Pearl Harbor. The Bush cabal was responsible for 9/11. American leaders murdering Americans in order to rally the country behind wars is not acceptable. 84% of Americans don't believe the official govt version of what happened on 9/11. The country didn't have access to the truth in 1941, but we do now. The U.S. govt did the 9/11 job. And yet whiny old pantywaists dither and naysay. Nattering nabobs of negativism, as Spiro Agnew said. Someone points to clear historical connections between events, and you want to play the Jew card. Or the URL card. You don't want things to change. The greatest generation was bought off with faint praise. So pitiful. One of you old stains please tell me what the WW2 generation did that was great? They went off to fight yet another rich man's war and still, with today's internet, they can't string together a half dozen bits of information that show they were HAD. Fought a rich man's war, both sides backed by the same bankers, half the world given to the Ruskies afterwards so we could continue the conflict through another half century and a bunch more wars, and the fossils can't figger it out. Fed their kids to the machine in Viet Nam, their grandkids to the machine in Iraq, and they still think they're the greatest generation. Someone please explain why that is. I know 15 years olds who have figured this out, so why can't the old folks? |
|
15 Jan 07 - 02:48 AM (#1936967) Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Well, everyone was had, most particulary the millions of young Germans who marched for Hitler. But you've hit on the key difference between FDR's actions and Bush's. The war with Germany was inevitable, and FDR knew it. And it was necessary, in a general sense, once it got going between the UK and Germany, to pursue that war to a conclusion, because Hitler's Germany was a very aggressive and ambitious nation...a real threat to its neighbours, in other words. The present world conflict with Muslims was never necessary. They were not a real threat to the USA, but mostly a manufactured one. Al Queda is not a nation or the representative of a nation. It is not the armed forces of a nation. It is a clandestine organization. Clandestine organizations should be dealt with by international police investigations, not by lauching mechanized wars against whole nations! Al Queda has, in fact, merely been used as an excuse to assault whole nations that Mr Bush wanted to invade. Therefore I submit that the situation is quite different, in that Roosevelt was reacting to a genuine threat (German expansionism), whereas the Bush administration made up imaginary threats that were not real...and is itself an expansionist power. Roosevelt had a modern nation and its military forces to fight...three of them, in fact, with armed forces which were competitive with his own. Bush did not. He made up false threats. Therefore, I find Roosevelt's actions just a bit more explainable and rational than Bush's, don't you? ;-) I was not in WWII. My father was. He drove a tank, and he always said that the whole war experience was the stupidest, most wasteful thing he ever saw in his life...but he was quite motivated to defeat the Germans, nonetheless. He regarded them as a real threat, and they were...at that time. They certainly aren't now. It's America that is a real threat now. It's America that invades countries that are too small and poorly armed to fight back effectively. |
